A new philosophy of mind

Literphor

I is for ignorance
Registered Member
I'm not happy with what I wrote here, and realize I can't give this idea any justice with my current understanding of the world. Sorry for creating a thread without fully developing my thought, it won't happen again.

Please, if anyone can delete this thread I'd appreciate it.
 
Last edited:
I think I have a reasonable grasp of where you're trying to go with this, but no matter how you try to model brain states, you've still got to explain where the very seeds of the dimension of experience that accompanies them come from.

The more I think about it, and talk about it, and read about it, the more certain I become that those seeds must be a property of matter itself; that there is something about matter that is inherently conducive to the eventual generation of things like cognition and conscious awareness once it manifests as the right sort of interactive architecture.

"Think about all the known properties of matter. Feelings don't seem to be electromagnetic radiation or sound waves, or to correspond to anything in the known physical structure of atoms. They're not quarks, they're not electrons; what on earth are they? Vibrating strings? Quantum gravitons? Dark matter?

This is the 'hard problem' enunciated by Chalmers; and, like James before him, Chalmers too has argued that it can only be answered through the discovery of new, fundamental, properties of matter. The reason is simple. Feelings are physical, yet the known laws of physics, which can supposedly give us a complete account of the world, have no place for them. For all it's marvelous power, natural selection doesn't conjure up something from nothing: there has to be a germ of something for it to act upon, a germ of a feeling, you might say, that evolution can fashion into the majesty of mind."

- Nick Lane, Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution, Page 252
 
I learned today that I am, at least tentatively, a hylopathist, of a sort. It doesn't exactly have a nice 'ring' to it, but it certainly seems less bothersome than describing myself as a physicalist who has hijacked panprotoexperientialism, which is what I attempted to do once before.

Yes, this thread is my blog :p
 
Last edited:
I'm not happy with what I wrote here, and realize I can't give this idea any justice with my current understanding of the world. Sorry for creating a thread without fully developing my thought, it won't happen again.

Please, if anyone can delete this thread I'd appreciate it.

Regardless of how happy you were with what came out, I think it is great to see people taking their best shot at such things. That's what this forum is all about, and if it's not, it should be.
 
I'm not happy with what I wrote here, and realize I can't give this idea any justice with my current understanding of the world. Sorry for creating a thread without fully developing my thought, it won't happen again.

Please, if anyone can delete this thread I'd appreciate it.

Please don't worry about such things. Perfectionism is not your friend.

And this is Sciforums. ;)
 
I learned today that I am, at least tentatively, a hylopathist, of a sort. It doesn't exactly have a nice 'ring' to it, but it certainly seems less bothersome than describing myself as a physicalist who has hijacked panprotoexperientialism, which is what I attempted to do once before.

How do you distinguish your view from animism (or forms thereof)?
 
How do you distinguish your view from animism (or forms thereof)?

Mostly in the sense that in my view, inanimate objects are still inanimate. But I'm not inclined to spend too much time elaborating in this particular thread, since it might end up being deleted as per the OP's request.
 
Back
Top